Sunday, November 09, 2008

Strange parallels

In an article posted at World Net Daily (see here) we are told: "The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would 'require' all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened."

Interestingly, as Dusty Sklar notes in her book "The Nazis and the Occult," "German youth had always been highly organized. In the Weimar Republic some 4.5 million boys and girls under twenty-one were members of organizations connected with the National Board of German Youth Associations. Under Hitler, the youth movement became a holy crusade. By the end of 1934, the Hitler Youth included 6 million members, ranging in age from ten to eighteen...Parents and church groups were in jeopardy if they failed actively to support the Hitler Youth, so that eventually all the young in Germany, according to the contemporary observer, Stephen H. Roberts, were 'stamped into the same mould' and emerged 'as unquestioning automata, physically fit and mental sponges for the official Hitler hero-worship,' with the slogan 'Command and we follow...the standard is more than death'...The brainwashing actually began in the cradle. Even the fairy tales read to babies instilled the propaganda that the Fuhrer had been sent from heaven to kill the wicked enemy who was eager to devour little children...The system of indoctrination was perfect. At ten, each boy joined the Young Folk: and each girl, the Union of German Maidens. They received uniforms and took a pledge to devote their lives to the Fuhrer. His will was to be their will. Hitler knew well how to accomplish this:

"This youth learns nothing else than to think German, to act German, and if these boys enter our organization at the age of 10,...then 4 years later they come from the Jungfolk into the Hitler Youth, and we keep them there for another 4 years, and then we certainly don't give them back into the hands of the originators of our old classes and estates, but take them straight into the party, into the Labour Front, the SA or the SS, the NSKK, and so on. And if they are there for another 2 years or a year and a half and still haven't become complete National Socialists, then they go into the Labour Service and are polished for another 6 or 7 months, all with a symbol, the German spade. And any class consciousness or pride of status that may be left here and there is taken over by the Wehrmacht for further treatment for 2 years, and when they come back after 2, 3, or 4 years, we take them straight into the SA, SS, and so on again, so that they shall in no case suffer a relapse, and they don't feel free again as long as they live...'" (The Nazis and the Occult,pp. 109-110).

"...we get a much more dangerous situation when propaganda moves out of its original orbit; when it ceases to be exercised on behalf of a number of competing movements and parties within the State, and instead is taken over by the State itself; when the State, in short, begins to behave as if it were itself a movement or a party. Contemporary history shows us clearly enough that the scourge called 'the single party' paves the way for that other scourge, State propaganda. The single party is always the root from which modern dictatorships spring and from which they draw their strength.." (Gabriel Marcel, Man Against Mass Society, p. 50).

11 comments:

Jonathan
said...

I'm sure we are going to hear many Americans say "It can't happen here." It was the same back in 1930's Germany. But these people will only be deceiving themselves. We've become so blind in our culture. We're so addicted to the pursuit of pleasure (bread and circuses) that we are unable to discern the alarming trends.

Father Frank Pavone, like yourself Mr. Melanson, is not blind to what is happening. According to an article in The Catholic Free Press, Father Pavone said in a statement that the electorate made "a grave mistake." The article also mentions how Obama said that "he does not know when a human being starts to have human rights."

Father Pavone was quoted as having said that, "Governing is about protecting human rights; to do it successfully, you have to know where they come from, and when they begin."

Let's analyze Father Pavone's comment. If Obama doesn't know where human rights come from, is he likely to respect our human rights as being inalienable - coming from Almighty God - or is he likely to treat them as something completely arbitrary which are granted by the State? Is this why he has proposed mandatory youth service as Hitler did?

If Obama doesn't know where human rights come from or when they begin, will he find it easy to deny the human rights of certain segments of society beyond the unborn? For example, people who "cling to religion"?

Jonathan, very well said my friend. Isn't it fascinating how liberal pundits will often attempt to lump what they refer to as the "radical right" with the Nazis, in what is a truly inept comparison. But the irony is usually missed. Many of these "progressives" fail to realize that they share more in common ideologically with the Nazis or as they were also known: the National Socialists. The key word here being "socialists."

President-elect Obama's refusal to acknowledge where human rights come from (such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and when they begin is just frightening. And the implications of this are almost too disturbing to think about.

We ignore the words of Spinoza at our own peril [most especially since we are now in the midst of a very troubled economy):

"...being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favors, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery...In adversity they know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption."

What was the German economy like throughout the 1920's and until Hitler came to power? Reflect very carefully on Spinoza's words. I received a comment here at La Salette Journey in which the anonymous individual asserted that I am not only "not Catholic" but am "insane."

Expect this attitude to deepen in many people. As a society grows more and more totalitarian, any criticism of the State is ridiculed. Not even difficult questions are tolerated.

Whole peoples can be brainwashed. We have only to view the old news reels of Nazi Germany to know this. It never ceases to amaze me how entire crowds of people would stare transfixed at Hitler as he gave a speech and the crazed look in their faces as if they were worshiping their "god."

I have seen the same look on the faces of Obama supporters. Many have commented on his eloquence and his ability to manipulate the huge crowds he attracts.

What really gets me is that many of the churches are silent about the rising danger or they are just unaware.

I would encourage those who are concerned to raise their voices and to sound the alarm while they still can. We may all find ourselves silenced soon. Censored by a socialist state and a New World Order which will not admit any dissent.

Meanwhile, while Christians are tripping all over themselves to bless and pray for Obama and to congratulate him on his victory, Obama will in all likelihood be siding with the United Nations radical pro-abortion agenda:

Obama Expected to Join Forces with UN in Global Pro-Abortion Agenda

Commentary by Austin Ruse

NEW YORK, NY, November 7, 2008 (C-FAM) - The pro-abortion law group the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has already called for President-elect Obama to renew America’s commitment to “reproductive rights” which, according to CRR, prominently includes a right to abortion. It is likely the new president will work almost immediately to correct what his ideological allies like CRR view as multiple mistakes of the Bush administration with regard to international social policy on this issue.

Obama has in the past spoken out against the so-called Mexico City Policy, which forbids US money from supporting groups overseas that promote or perform abortions. This is a Reagan era policy that was struck down during the Clinton years and resurrected on the first day in office of George W. Bush. No one should be surprised if Obama strikes this down on his first day in office and that US money will begin to flow again to pro-abortion groups overseas.

Obama has spoken out against US refusal to fund the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), a United Nations (UN) agency that promotes population control, fertility reduction, and abortion all over the world. UNFPA helped the Chinese government set up and run its one-child policy, which has resulted in upwards of 100 million abortions, many of them forced or coerced.

A US law called Kemp-Kasten mandates that US money cannot support groups that cooperate in coerced abortions. The US State Department has repeatedly determined that UNFPA is complicit in the coercive policies of the China government and has therefore refused funding for the past eight years. Congress has for many years voted to resume UNFPA funding and has been overruled by President Bush. It is expected that Obama will resume funding.

There is the question of UN treaties that the US has refused to ratify. These treaties include the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Kyoto Treaty on the Environment, the International Criminal Court and the Landmines Treaty. While various US presidents have signed some of these treaties, the Senate under both Democratic and Republican rule has ratified none of them. It is unclear that the left has enough votes in the Senate to meet the necessary two-thirds needed for ratification. Still critics fear that an Obama administration will try to move the Senate toward ratification. Obama’s UN and European allies will certainly pressure Obama to do so.

Although there was a frenzy of global UN conferences back in the 1990s, including such massive affairs as the Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Conference on Women, the time of the Bush administration has been relatively quiet. There was a global conference on disabilities, a racism conference in South Africa, and a two-year negotiation on human cloning, but not much more. The left at the UN counseled quiet during the Bush years for fear of losing ground in the documents that would have come under negotiation. With an Obama administration this fear is removed and one can expect a veritable flood of UN conferences to be announced beginning as early as this year.

Prophecies are being fulfilled literally right before our eyes. All the elements of a one-world government are falling into place. We Christians need to evangelize our neighbors and to remind them of God's love for every man, woman and child. This isn't about "doom and gloom." It is about preparing an ark spiritually and physically in these times of encroaching darkness. Remember, after the darkness id dispelled, Jesus will bring His Kingdom and will rule the nations with an iron rod, bringing real peace and justice. And these will last forever.

UK's Brown: Now is the time to build global society07:03 PM ESTLONDON (Reuters) - The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.

In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.

Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.

"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.

"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."

According to a summary of the speech released by his office, Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.

These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.

Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.

He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.

"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."

I agree with Brown that we need to do more to address the problem of global terrorism. But what exactly does he mean by "extremism"? When someone [anyone] calls for world government, I get very uneasy. When they speak vaguely about addressing what they view as "extremism," I get even more uneasy.

How shall we define "extremism"? Are those who pray outside abortion clinics guilty of "extremism"? How about those pastors or ministers who speak from the pulpit against same-sex "marriage"? Christians in the public square who publically oppose euthanasia or call for prayer in the public schools?

Jesus told us to watch for and to be able to read the signs of the times. Can we? Or will we pretend not to see in order to go along and get along?

St. Gregory the Great said that "After the birth of Antichrist most of mankind will be such as corrupt the world; and the sheep shall be changed into godless or fallen into heresy. Churches will be empty and dilapidated, priests will have little zeal for souls and pious people will be few. Most people will be given up to all imaginable vices."

What do we see today but dilapidated Churches, priests with little or no zeal for souls who refuse to proclaim Catholic truth in its entirety, the sheep fallen into heresy or become godless and most given up to all imaginable vices (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, pornography, self-mutilation (e.g., vasectomy), bestiality etc.

Is there really anyone who can say with a straight face that the Antichrist is not amongst us?

Paul, you've hit the nail on the head. Who will define what constitutes "extremism" in this New World Order being called for? You have been called insane while being told you are not a Catholic for identifying concerns about Barack Obama. But the person who wrote those words apparently is not concerned about Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Michael Brown has an article at Spirit Daily about Obama and ESCR. He writes:

OKAY OF EMBRYONIC CELL RESEARCH WILL INTRODUCE SPIRITUAL DANGER THAT WAS PROPHESIED AS 'COMPARABLE' TO ABORTION

The astonishing election of Barack Obama to the presidency was a great moment and also a tragic one.

It was a great moment for blacks: during endless decades, they have felt like strangers in their own land -- not truly bona fide citizens. One can only imagine how it feels not to be fully at home in the nation of one's birth. When Afro-Americans look to Washington, they will now see one of their own, as Catholics did in 1960 with Kennedy. To view their joy election night was amazing.

That was the great aspect of it. Racism is evil. Everyone should cheer at the advancements of Afro-Americans, and celebrate their equality. That was truly joyous. Who could not savor that aspect?

The tragedy is that the first Afro-American president -- this man of undeniable intelligence, personality, and skill, who caused a historic moment -- is so radically "pro-choice" and in fact is now ready to take us to a new level of danger.

The danger is not only his tremendously strong support for abortion (which includes partial-birth), but also human-embryonic stem cell research, which causes the destruction of human life at its earliest stage -- just after conception (just like abortion) -- and occurs when cells are cultured and manipulated for medical use, leaving the nascent human, conceived outside the womb, in a lab dish, at a fertility clinic, to die at the age of four or five days.

In most cases this is done by the simple in vitro fertilization of an egg with sperm, but such embryos can also be multiplied through cloning.

Sources indicate that President-elect Obama will move to initiate and expand such research immediately upon entering the Oval Office, through an executive order.

Make no mistake. This is a spiritual crisis. For those who believe that life begins at conception (and despite a woeful lack of attention to the issue by pro-lifers during the election), human embryonic destruction is comparable to any other form of abortion.

And as with abortion, it will lead to future tragedy.

The research will almost certainly be approved and funded by the Democratically-controlled Congress, where House leader Nancy Pelosi has long expressed urgent support for it, as has Senator John McCain, and as has Senator Hillary Clinton -- whose pro-choice position is as radical as Obama's (though she escaped the vitriol directed at him).

It is a truly "stealth" danger. Once approved, the number of human embryos could skyrocket. At least 400,000 have been frozen already in the U.S., although just a small percentage -- 11,000 -- have thus far been designated for research (according to one recent assessment). The question is whether unfettered research will cause a multiplication to the point of approaching or exceeding the 1.2 million unborn terminated each year in the U.S. through regular abortions.

The embryos are usually "extra" ones created when a couple has sought help from a fertility clinic, but they can also be cloned -- greatly increasing the number.

Stem cells form various organs, chemicals, and tissues that can then be manipulated to develop in a way that yields substances which may help alleviate or even cure a number of serious ailments or even grow new organs. Diseases that might be treated by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells include Parkinson's, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Purkinje cell degeneration, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss.

The problem: embryos die in the process of that freezing, thawing, and of course drawing forth of stem cells.

Scientists refer to it as a "hollow microscopic ball of cells" called the blastocyst; it should be called a child, known by God.

To make matters more unpalatable, the inner surface of the culture dish is typically coated with mouse embryonic skin cells that have been treated so they will not divide. This coating layer of cells is called a feeder layer. The reason for having the mouse cells in the bottom of the culture dish is to give the inner cell mass cells a sticky surface to which they can attach. Thus, human and rodent cells are grown side by side, interacting.

In and of itself, human cloning is a ghastly sin -- never mind its coupling with embryonic destruction.

With it we reach the point where we create humans so we can destroy them and harvest their remains. It is subtle and microscopic and out of view: but did they do anything worse in Nazi Germany?

Have politicians meditated on this? Has Obama? How can men who seem to be of good will -- and high intelligence -- support such things?

Whether or not it ever approaches the number for abortion, the technology of cloning and stem cells brings to mind what we have called the 1990 prophecy -- in startling fashion. In fact, a mystery of that prophecy might now be solved.

That alleged message -- granted to an anonymous recipient on December 3, 1990 -- warned of "a new evil the likes of which mankind has never before encountered.

"It will arrive almost imperceptibly," said the missive, "with few people noticing the depth of its evil, for it will appear to have beneficial and convenient aspects. It is an evil comparable to abortion -- that is to say, that even if evils as great and widespread as abortion were to be eliminated, this is enough of an evil that it would present mankind with an enormous challenge."

Is that new evil embryonic manipulation? "Comparable" to abortion -- and yet not abortion per se -- could be seen as indicating something such as embryonic research (as well as other forms of genetic manipulation, with "beneficial" relating to medical promises). Breakthroughs and funding for cloning technology took place precisely four years after the prediction -- in 1994.

"This evil is being allowed as a test because of the prayers inspired by Mary to put off chastisements," claimed the prophecy. "How mankind responds to this new evil will determine the extent, length, and severity of the first chastisements. These chastisements will differ according to regions, and like the great evil, will not always or usually be immediately noticeable for what they are."

A follow-up prophecy to the same person 14 years later included the words: "The smallest of what lives is precious in My sight."

Are we thus poised to enter a more intense period of events?

Where is the outrage?

How many realize the result if President-elect Obama blindly signs such an executive order?

Few recall a major article in The New York Times a few years ago on a decision by President George Bush to ban government funding of embryonic destruction but to allow limited private research into this realm -- opening the door for such research (and tempting scientists to barge through, which they now threaten to do if the president and Congress do what it appears they probably will).

"Scientists Urge Bigger Supply Of Stem Cells," said this particular article, at the top of the Times' front page. "Report Backs Cloning to Create New Lines."

That was the headline. And the date?

September 11, 2001.

I agree with Michael Brown, there is really no difference between what we are doing to unborn life and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. But so many don't protest what's going on because they have become morally and spiritually blind.

Links

About Me

Born in Bitburg, Germany,
Paul Melanson is a Catholic lay-philosopher and apologist whose work has appeared in many publications and websites including The Union Leader, The Wanderer, Seattle Catholic, Newsblaze, Helium, and Amazines. He has been interviewed by The National Catholic Register, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the television newsmagazine Chronicle.